ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 223 



effect, of killing: off all tlie bijrger seals, and at the same time redriving 

 those that are allowed to grow up, if they happen to escape. 

 1 ought perhaps to read the last paragraph ou page 8: 



Witli this knowledge, tlaen, the full effect of " driving" becomes apparent and that 

 result of slowly but surely robbing the rookeries of a lull and substantial supply of 

 fresh young male blood, demanded by nature imperatively, for their support up to 

 the standard of full expansion (such as I recorded in 1872-LS74) — that result began, 

 it now seems clear, to set in from the very begiuuiug, 20 years ago under the present 

 system. 



Then lower down on tlie same page: 



Naturally enough, being so long away from the field, on reading Mr. Charles J. 

 Goff's report for the season's work of 1889, I at once,juni])ed to the conclusion that 

 the pelagic sealing, the poaching of 188B-1889 was the sole cause for that shrinkage 

 which he declared manifest, on those rookeries and hauling grounds of the Pribilof 

 Islands. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Did Mr. Goff make two reports? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — One has been produced to us. Sir. I 

 referred to it this morning at page 84 of the hrst Volume of the 

 Appendix to the Counter Case. Whether he made another or not, I 

 do not know. If he did make another, it has not been produced; but 

 I should like, as the Judge has put that question to me, to read a pas- 

 sage from this very report, where after referring to the pelagic sealers 

 as pirates, anticipating the argument of Mr. Carter, he says: 



If these piratical vessels were allowed to butcher the seals regardless of sex and 

 age, the seals of Alaska will soon be exterminated. The prospeiity of these world- 

 renowned rookeries is fast fading away under the present annual catch allowed by 

 law, and this indiscreet slaughter now being waged in these waters will only hasten 

 the end of the furseals of the Pribilof Islands. 



Therefore I call attention to the fact that the reports made by Mr. 

 Goft' in the year 18U0 — most careful reports — with regard to the effect 

 of driving, as you will see later ou, and corroborating Mr. Elliott with 

 regard to the absence of bull seals, are made by peo])Ie who are cer- 

 taiuly as desirous as they can be of supx)orting the United States case. 



Senator ]\Iorgan. — Sir Kichard, I have made no harsh commentary 

 upon Mr. Elliott while this case has been going on, and I do not pro- 

 pose to make any now; but it is a subject that ought to be inquired 

 into, whether he, having recommended that 100,000 seals could be 

 taken profitably to the seal herd and to the United States — 



Sir Kichard Webster. — In 1878. 



Senator Morgan. — In 1878; having recommended that, and the Gov- 

 ernment having observed the policy which he recommended without 

 question at all, is he not particularly interested in showing that the 

 loss of numbers in the seal herd was not due to following his advice, 

 but was due to some other cause? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I should have thought so, and he should 

 have endeavored to put it upon pelagic sealing; but I beg to observe 

 that it is because they have gone on taking the 100,000 annually, that 

 he honestly and candidly said he was wrong. 



Senator Morgan. — I do not disi)ute that at all; but it is a little 

 unfortunate that the Government, having followed his advice, has no 

 right now to question his statements or opinions about it. 



Sir Richard Webster. — It is not a question of no right to criticise 

 his ojnnions. They have every right. My learned friends have not heard 

 from me a single word to the effect that they have not the right to crit- 

 icise his opinions. 1 was prepared to show the circumstances under 

 which and the knowledge with which Mr, Elliott reported, and you know 

 what Mr. Phelps said yesterday in regard to the matter. Criticise thia 



